3 on 3: Can 'Gravity' win Best Picture?

After three film festivals and weeks of buzz, Alfonso Cuarón's "Gravity" has finally arrived in theaters in the U.S. The film has been an awards season player for some time, but the universal acclaim has likely surprised even Warner Bros., who produced and is distributing the film.

As of today, "Gravity" has a 96 out of 100 average score on Metacritic. Out of 47 reviews, 27 have been graded a 100 score (for comparison's sake, last year's highest rated film was "Zero Dark Thirty" with a 95 and 26 100 scores). On Rotten Tomatoes, "Gravity" has a 98% "fresh" rating with 202 positive and just 5 negative reviews. Last year, the highest rated Oscar player was the eventual Best Picture winner "Argo," with 96% ("Zero Dark Thirty" followed with 93%). And, in terms of box office, "Gravity" earned a stellar $17 million on Friday for what could be a $44-48 million opening weekend. That would put it in the top 10 October debuts of all-time.

Obviously, critics and moviegoers are not the Academy, but that reaction shows the film's reception in two spheres that matter to AMPAS voters. So, the big question everyone will be asking is: can "Gravity" win Best Picture? It's one subject Kristopher Tapley, Guy Lodge and I ponder as we bring you another installment of 3 on 3.

Did Universal Pictures make a mistake passing on the project?

Kristopher Tapley: It's tough to say. Universal has been going through a lot of changes as of late and a risk like this may simply not have been a luxury they could afford. Certainly it would have been nice to have a film like "Gravity" in their catalog, because it is such a landmark achievement, but every studio is different at different times. Warner Bros. may simply have been a better home for the film at the end of the day, so I guess my answer is no, I don't think they made a "mistake," per se.

Gregory Ellwood: Absolutely. No one can ever realistically calculate what the extra time it took "Gravity" to find another home added to the final product, but Cuarón had this picture pre-visualized years ago. Did special effects significantly advance in just two years? Would Cuaron and his team come up with the same special effect solutions shooting in the US as they did in the UK? Would Steven Price still been the film's composer? Hard to say. It's also difficult to imagine Angelina Jolie, who was attached to the film at Universal, would have delivered a less powerful performance than Bullock. That means Universal lost out on what may turnout to be a global phenomenon. Now, if it had been Natalie Portman or Scarlett Johansson? No disrespect to those younger ladies, but then you're talking a much different movie.

Guy Lodge: Well, one might say the reviews and the early box office returns provide an easy answer to that question -- what studio wouldn't regret passing on a commercial and critical hit that also looks and feels like nothing else out there? At the same time, it was a high-risk proposition: Cuarón's last film, a similarly cutting-edge genre piece, registered with cinephiles but not general audiences, and "Gravity" came with a heftier price tag. (Meanwhile, the script -- prior to reshoots -- was cooler in temperature than the film we see today, so you can understand their fear that audiences wouldn't respond to it.) Should they have been braver, trusting in Cuarón's seemingly limitless artistry and the power of star casting to help audiences make the leap? Yes. But hindsight, much like Justin Timberlake, is always 20/20.

Unlike "Avatar" or "2001," can "Gravity" win Best Picture?

Kristopher Tapley: Science-fiction always faces an uphill climb for whatever reason. I guess it's genre bias, but then, it's not like "Gravity" is a steeped in genre. It's a thriller and more realistic than some of the stuff that becomes classified as "sci-fi," but even a movie like "Apollo 13" couldn't get there. I think, yes, "Gravity" can win Best Picture, but like those other two films, it's an instant landmark. The accomplishment is lost on no one, but historically, those milestones are passed over by the Academy. I'd like to think it has an even better chance than those examples did, however.

Gregory Ellwood: The passion from filmmakers and actors who have seen "Gravity" so far says yes. Remember, "Gravity" is set in space, but it's not science-fiction. It's mostly (and yes, "mostly") based completely on reality. And, so far, that seems to be resonating with the industry and the general public. A lot will be written about "Gravity's" chances but the critical acclaim is probably even more than Warner Bros. anticipated. Will "American Hustle," "12 Years A Slave" (upon release) or "Saving Mr. Banks" resonate more? One thing's for sure, "Gravity" will be a contender until the end.

Guy Lodge: Yes. On the one hand, genre precedent (or lack thereof) is never a reason to bet against a film winning picture. Horror films "couldn't" win Best Picture... until "The Silence of the Lambs." Fantasy epics "couldn't" win Best Picture... until "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." And so on. But I think the more salient point is that "Gravity" -- it's unearthly setting notwithstanding -- isn't really cut from the same cloth as "Avatar" or "2001." There's debate over whether the film should really be labeled sci-fi at all. I say no: though my space knowledge is too limited to make clear judgements on the film's real-world credibility, there was nothing in it that seemed implausible to me. Some Academy members might find overtly fantastical science-fiction alienating, but "Gravity" is a fundamentally relatable human drama, only against a spectacular backdrop. That will help it.

Sandra Bullock has not decided what her next film would be. What advice would you give her? What should she do next?

Kristopher Tapley: Far be it from me to give someone like Sandra Bullock advice, but honestly, I say this: Keep doing what you're doing. We just ran a fun feature about some of her lesser-laureled performances that are nonetheless great examples of her being at the top of her game. She's always had that spark, since we first saw her 20 years ago in movies like "Demolition Man" and "Speed." She's made smart decisions every step of the way, reaped financial benefits, picked up awards. Whatever she does next, I hope it's less calculation than risk. Because the lesson of "Gravity" is to reach for the stars, so I'd love to see her do something completely, entirely unexpected.

Gregory Ellwood: Bullock has publicly stated she felt like she had to earn her Oscar after winning for "The Blind Side." I think whether she wins or not this season (she will be nominated), "Gravity" proves her worth as an Academy Award-winning actress. Does this mean Bullock should be taking on the next "Under the Skin" or "Holy Motors" that comes her way? We certainly wouldn't protest, but not really. First off, Bullock has made it clear she loves to make comedies or action comedies. Those films will always be part of her creative slate. What "Gravity" has done is to put her in the conversation of drama actresses such as Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett and Nicole Kidman that many top filmmakers pursue for their talent and financing. That wasn't necessarily the case after "Blind Side." Bullock might still lose out on some roles those other four ladies are offered, but I'd expect her prestige film output to definitely increase in the years ahead.

Guy Lodge: Anything she wants to, pretty much. Anyone who thought Bullock's career might have peaked with her divisive Oscar win in 2010 was proven sorely wrong this year with the fantastic one-two punch of "The Heat" and "Gravity." The former proved her enduring commercial viability in her bread-and-butter genre, and was one of the fleetest, funniest comic vehicles of her career. The latter not only took her into uncharteed territory -- "Gravity" is both auteur cinema and a dramatic blockbuster -- but demanded that she shoulder it pretty much solo. Not only has she gained the best reviews of her career, but her fans seem to be taking the leap with her. So she's in an enviable position, career-wise: what she's always done is still working, but she has enough industry clout and audience goodwill to experiment a little. I hope she keeps doing so, but I wouldn't want her to neglect her gifts as a mainstream comedienne. "The Heat 2" is one summer sequel I actually want to see.

What did you think about "Gravity" and do you think it can win Best Picture? Vote in our poll and share your thoughts below

To be fair, Cuaron himself considers it sci-fi. So it's not necessary to draw a line in the sand or anything. I think, as I say in the article, that the fact that it isn't steeped in genre helps it. It's not fantasy/sci-fi, after all, and much of the films that have missed despite being cultural phenoms (the two mentioned above -- though 2001 to a lesser extent -- as well as Star Wars) have been more of that sort of hybrid.

But then, there's The Lord of the Rings. Sometimes the Academy can't look away from a true landmark and, more and more, I think that could be the case here.

ROTK win would be exactly a decade ago when Oscars are handed out. And when fake-looking Hobbit trailer played before Gravity, one could see the end of one era. Gravity is beginning of another. What better moment and movie to win? A decade after one groundbreaking genre movie another groundbreaking genre movie gets its due.

That said, you know that there will be politics imploring AMPAS for make history by awarding McQueen. I haven't seen his movie and I'm sure it's great but I've no doubt they'll play that certain card and AMPAS would have to comply in order not to look, well, you know.

It definitely "could" win. I think Avatar, 2001, Apollo 13, and Star Wars "could" have won too. In those years, there was just something else going on that the Academy wanted to reward more. Which may be the case again.

For visual effects, definitely. And I'm sure her and Clooney will get nominated for their performances. But for the Best Picture of the 2013? No way this wins, nor should it. The story was repetitive and largely one note.

Nah. It's a survival story in space that does almost everything right - including its avoidance of giving us more information about the characters than we need. It's also one of the tensest movies I've ever seen.

Will it win Best Picture? Probably not. Does it deserve to? I'll wait until later in the year to judge that - suffice it to say that it'll have to be an extraordinary year to push this out of my Top 5.

I agree with you. I thought it was a good movie, but I'm not a huge fan of everything that can go wrong does go wrong scenarios. And the constant grabbing at things and missing was just annoying. In a best picture, I look for great performances (over special effects) and I'm hoping to see better ones in the next couple of months.

The writer's branch is bigger though, and has tastes that align more closely with the Academy at large. And there are 10 rather than 5 screenplay nominees. Also, the story/script is the most important factor in whether the film works.

I'm not currently predicting it to get a Screenplay nomination, but it most certainly could and quite frankly should get a screenplay nomination. Let's not forget the writers have backed Cuaron twice before, and that was for 2 films that didn't get the Best Picture nomination that seems inevitable for "Gravity" at this point.

I don't think the sci-fi bias applies here. For the most part, this movie's pretty firmly grounded in reality. Yeah, it's set in space, but there's nothing fantastical going on. Worst thing it does is play a little fast and loose with the orbital paths of certain satellites, which I don't think the casual, non-astrophysicist viewer is going to find alienating.

Would Cuaron and McQueen also be Producer nominees for their pictures? Because if a Director/Picture vote split would result in both getting Oscars (regardless of the category), then that might be a happy outcome. Or an outlandish tie for both films in the Director and Picture categories! Why choose?! :-)

Maybe I'm overthinking the racial component, but I have a feeling that there would be a huge controversy if "12 Years a Slave" won Best Picture but McQueen didn't win Best Director. The potential for a historic moment (first black director to win the Oscar) is so great this year that if they pass on the opportunity while still giving his film Best Picture, I suspect a lot of racially-charged accusations will get thrown around.

Then again, Cuaron would be the first Hispanic director to win, so that's a potentially historic moment too.

I thought of that Edwin, and it's crappy that we live in a world where that's even a legitimate concern...

But I think that Cuaron would be such an obviously deserving alternative to McQueen that it would be hard to cast a win for him in a racial light. Especially since I'm sure that, as you point out, he has likely faced his own fair share of racial obstacles and he would be a "first minority" winner as well.

Silly to suggest that Alfonso Cuaron has faced "his own fair share of racial obstacles." He's white and from an incredibly privileged family in Mexico. Is he a cutting edge filmmaker who's faced challenges bringing artistry to the commercial market? Absolutely. But there's no "minority" card to play here. If the Academy is interested in "firsts" (and it is) the argument is in certainly in Steve McQueen's favor.

The sci-fi spectacular of the new century, Wall-E, sadly missed out on a Best Picture nomination despite even possibly greater critical acclaim in 2008. It is now regarded as a bonafide classic and placed as the 202th greatest film of all time in the decennial Sight And Sound Critics Poll just 5 years after its release.

Gravity is in a year of 10 so it is in. It is definitely a directors film so it is in for Director. But I honestly think it won't win. When push comes to shove, the academy will nominate auteur cinema but it will always reward the dramatic film with real life purport in the vein of 12 Years A Slave.

Curon is in play to win Best Director, but again the academy just votes for their Best Picture in Best Director 95% of the time (last year had the directors branch not upturned Affleck's cart, he would have won walking away, he only had to be nominated). So if the best picture favorite is 12 Years A Slave, it will be the default favorite of Best Director too.

What Gravity has that 2001 or Avatar didn't is an acclaimed central performance. That might help it with some votes from the actors' branch. 2001 and Avatar were mostly seen as visions and works of their respective directors. Gravity is an acting and directorial showcase.

That being said, I still don't see it winning although it might be a close second.

I think people are so focused one whether or not it will be a victim of anti-science fiction bias that some of the film's other awards challenges are being overlooked. First and foremost being that its largely an action thriller. Has a film ever won with so little dialogue and so much action (and by "action" I just mean stuff actively happening on screen). Also, has any movie with a small cast like this ever won? The closest nominee in recent years that I can think of is 127 Hours.

Anyway, I do think the film is on track to get a lot of nominations and whatnot. If it plays its cards right it can be this year's Hugo/Life of Pi, I just don't see it winning the top prize.

OK, I just have a question. I really want to see this movie as soon as possible, but in the best format available. The closest thing to me is a "lie-MAX" screen. Should I wait until I'm back in NYC later this week to go see it at a true IMAX screen, or is the lie-MAX screen good enough

I'm curious what Guy means when he says the script originally had a cooler temperature? I liked Gravity a lot but it was unexpectedly clunky and cheesy at times. I guess I was expecting more 2001 and less Hollywood. Maybe the cooler version would have been more to my taste...

Guy, Sandra was mediocre and forgettable in The Heat ( she gave the performances in those lousy Miss Congeniality films ) , and Melissa McCarthy's loudmouth/grating performance helped make the film almost unbearable. Their performances need to be nominated for Razzies.

Gregory Ellwood, Sandra Bullock is not in the same league with Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett and Nicole Kidman . She doesn't have the depth , range , and the acting talents of these superbly gifted actresses . I always see Sandra Bullock in all her performances, and I never see her transform into her roles.

It's a question. You hate the movie wildly, apparently, and therefore, I'm guessing, can't quite see how much of an impact the film is making/has made on filmmakers and voters. Ergo, it's in the hunt to win Best Picture and very well could walk away with it.

This seems very possible. "Gravity" feels more like this year's "Hugo" or "Life of Pi" (albeit even more acclaimed than either of those movies) than this year's Best Picture winner. I could see it winning Cinematography, Visual Effects, Original Score, and both sound categories. Possibly Editing, but I think that might be where they award "Captain Phillips" (should they see it fit to do so). So yeah, it could definitely win 5 or 6 awards, but I'm not convinced Best Picture will be one of them.

1. The writer's branch is huge and the weakest thing about Gravity is the script which is really weak. It's not getting an original screenplay nod at all.

2. It's narrative isn't as strong as 12 Years a Slave. If you read The Hollywood Reporter article about all the things that they had to go through to get that film made, the narrative is too huge.

3. Gravity won't play well in screeners and I can't stress this enough. A good part of AMPAS will not see this film in theaters and it loses more than half of it's appeal if not seen in the theater in 3D.

4. "The greatest movie ever made about slavery" >>> "The greatest movie ever made in space" every single day of the week with AMPAS

5. 12 Years a Slave will be seen as a considerably more important film than Gravity. Not only because of the subject matter but because it would give AMPAS the opportunity to award the first black director ever. They are not going to pass that up.

6. This is mainly an action film. Even though I felt it still had too much dialogue, this is really going to have an issue connecting with AMPAS considering all of the action sequences.

I could probably keep going. I think this will be nominated in a lot of categories and probably only walk away with the tech wins. Cuaron might have the directors branch in his favor, but this just doesn't pack the emotional wallop that 12 Years a Slave does and both the actors and writers branches are really going to respond more to that.

I think your third point is probably the most troublesome for the movie's Best Picture chances. I can easily see a lot of voters watching it on a screener and not seeing what the big deal is.

I have to say, though, that while you've done a fair job at showing the advantages 12 Years a Slave has over Gravity, you haven't really made a conclusive argument as to why 12 Years a Slave will win Best Picture. If it comes down to just these two movies, then sure, but if your whole argument against Gravity winning Bests Picture revolves around 12 Years a Slave winning, then I'm not sure how you can be so confident when a few big movies still need to be seen. I mean, as of right now, I too think that 12 Years a Slave will win Best Picture, but I'm not confident enough to start making all of my other Oscar predictions under the assumption that 12 Years a Slave has already won.

I don't think you understand what makes for a great screenplay whatsoever. It IS NOT endlessly amazing dialogue and a convoluted plot. It's rather often conveying a simple story in the best possible, and most economic way, with simple little touches, simple little moments here and there that connect with an audience. Case in point, Black Swan was nominated for screenplay, something that was super melodramatic and dipped in and out of camp. So was WALL-E, which had hardly any dialogue whatsoever. Heck, so did AVATAR!!!Don't be surprised if this film gets a nod.

I am an engineer by trade and training and I can assure anyone harboring doubts that "Gravity" is as technically accurate as any space-based fictional feature I have ever seen. A great touch (SPOILER) is the small pocket "fireballs" coming from the shorted control panel on board the I.S.S. and the globular "fire" surrounding the contacts themselves - I almost screamed at her when she went by this, "Get the extinguisher!" (/SPOILER)

One factual howler, necessary for the story - the orbits of the I.S.S. and the Hubble telescope make it unlikely (maybe impossible) that they could be brought into the same part of near-orbital space. And, for the described modification, why would you want to?

If the academy follows the pattern that they have for the past few years, then Gravity will probably follow the likes of Inception, Hugo, and Life of Pi and nearly sweep the craft awards. From my pov, I see Gravity earning statues for cinematography, Visual effects and both if not just one of the sound categories. 12 Years a Slave seems like the one that will take best pic, director, adapted script, actor and I'm guessing score.

The passion from filmmakers and actors seeing the movie is much more vocal and intense than anything herd for the movies you mention. I would be careful about jumping on 12 Years. It will be an interesting race. Lots of time left, but Gravity can win and so can Bullock and Cuaron.

I would love to see Gravity pull a clean sweep. Which it could when you take a second to think about it. But even with the passion and praise from Bullock and Cuaron's colleagues, 12 Years, I feel, will likely register more with voters cause of the subject matter and the milestone opportunity. That and it will also be going wide around the time the awards season kicks into high-gear which will only give it more attention.

What actors? I haven't seen any real passion from any actors (besides Bullock's friend Octavia Spencer)? I mean, actors were actually far more vocal about Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine than they have been any aspect of Gravity. Filmmakers yes (Eli Roth, Tarantino) but I haven't seen any actors saying much of anything about the film.

I have a feeling that this here Oscar race is slowly but surely shaping up to be 1993 redux with 'Gravity' taking the 'Jurassic Park' position and '12 Years a Slave' in the 'Schindler's List' position.

In terms of wins, maybe. I could see "12 Years a Slave" sweeping like "Schindler's List" and "Gravity" winning 3-4 techs. But "Jurassic Park" only got 3 nominations (and won all of them). There's no way "Gravity" ends up with just 3 nominations. Right now it's looking very good for Picture, Director and Actress nominations, as well as a bunch of techs.I think a more appropriate comparison would be the "The Hurt Locker" vs. "Avatar" race in 2009. Movie with a very serious subject matter with a history making Director win vs. landmark 3D sci-fi achievement.

Has a film ever won Best Picture without getting a screenplay nod? Because this most certainly won't get one and most definitely doesn't deserve one. I thought it was a technical marvel, but I don't see the writers branch or the actors branch going for this in any big way. I also, oddly enough, think the cast is too small for this to really register.

As far as Bullock's next career move, you know what is bizarre? How much success she's had in America and the fact it hasn't really translated worldwide. Aside from The Proposal, the Heat and the Blind Side barely made any money at all in the foreign market. Jolie, Roberts, and Aniston have managed to take their popularity and turn it into worldwide superstardom but Bullock remains more of an American commodity. It's just interesting to me (also how the hell is it that with all of Bullock's recent success Julia Roberts is still $800 million ahead of her at the box office - she barely works anymore!).

And again, it's by no means certain that the film won't get a screenplay nomination -- particularly in a category that isn't all that competitive, and with a branch that has nominated Cuaron twice before.

I don't see how anyone can say that Original Screenplay isn't competitive and I don't see Gravity getting in here. Titanic is the exception, not the rule, and it was allowed to be the exception because it made over half a million dollars domestic, and 1 billion dollars foreign.

We can circle back around to this conversation if Gravity does the same.

I d have to second what Lindsay said about SaBu being an American thing. Heat and Blind Side made hardly any money in Europe - of course, Gravity will be big, but it is a phenomenon of epic proportions. I mean in a sense Sandra is quite bland, which is maybe the reason why it is so easy to identify with her? - Like in Germany, where I live, there is not even a competition between SaBu and Roberts, I mean of course Sandra is well-known, but not considered a big star - Gravity was marketed as a Clooney movie here.

Bacio, it's funny you say that, as Sandra Bullock grew up partially in Germany and speaks German fluently. Her mother is from Nuremberg. Of course, cultural proximity isn't always an ingredient in regional popularity (think Jerry Lewis). Also, she does come off very American and you would never guess she was German.

Actually, she is best-known for being half-German. ;) - no, of course she is famous (not on the level of Clooney though), and she would probably still be the no. 4 or 5 Hollywood actress people have on their minds when asked about famous actresses. Just that recent surge in popularity in the US is something that completely passed Europe by. Which I think has a lot to with Blind Side being so American (football, South, religion), and The Heat being a broad comedy that does not translate not so well... of course, Gravity will be huge (though the first week-end was underwhelming here, I expect it be a word-of-mouth hit)

The thing is - nobody will ever make a film like Gravity again, so I dunno what sort of precedent that establishes for Sandra? I mean box-office and future roles-wise - it was a very physical role, and she was good at it, but those three dramatic scenes will not make her pull off domestic drama or method acting all of a sudden, will it? I am still quite intrigued about what she does next though. I mean she did ELIAC after Blind Side, to middling success. I feel like she might take a break... Still interesting that she manages at 49 what Julia did 10 years ago. How is that for a late-career resurgence?!